DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 14 August 2026. Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-19 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-4, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17-19.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 13 recites “wherein the primary BLS” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the primary BLS—
-Claim 15 recites “wherein the first controller” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the first controller—
-Claim 15 recites “the first pair” in line 11. Examiner recommends amending to –the first pair of BLS devices—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claims 1, 10, and 15 recite “devices” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to output the BLS stimuli for a user. According to the specification the BLS devices include a pair of wireless bilateral stimulators that provide tactile and visual BLS as either an individual set or as part of a larger synchronized network [0004] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 15 recites “first controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is receiving an input to cause the first pair of BLS devices to initiate BLS stimuli. According to the specification the first controller includes a Fanstel BM840 BLE module paired with a TC2050-IDC XLINX-type cable connector for programming and debugging [0094] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 16 recites “a portable control device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is transmitting the input to the first controller. According to the specification the portable control device includes a smartphone device, a tablet computing device, a laptop computer [0063] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 17 recites “a user interface” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is receiving an input including session data. According to the specification the user interface includes a display on the portable control device showing user selections, unique identifiers and other device setting options [0088-0089] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 18 recites “a remote portable control device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to receive an input including session data. According to the specification the portable control devices includes a smartphone device, a tablet computing device, a laptop computer [0063] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 18 recites “second controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is receiving an input to cause the first pair of BLS devices to initiate BLS stimuli. According to the specification the second controller includes a Fanstel BM840 BLE module paired with a TC2050-IDC XLINX-type cable connector for programming and debugging [0094] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 13 recites “the instructions stored in the memory of the secondary BLS device” in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –instructions stored in the memory of the secondary BLS device—
-Claim 15 recites “the generated BLS stimuli” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –the generated parameters for the BLS stimuli—
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a series of mental processes that can occur in the human mind. These mental processes include receiving input and selecting settings or parameters for BLS stimulation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the at least one controller, processor and memory are recited as performing the generic computer function of receiving an input, generating parameters and casing an output. Further, mere instructions or commands to apply a judicial exception using a generic processing device does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receiving, generating steps merely define the data that can be presented to the mind and the causing steps can be performed by hand (an individual manually adjusting stimuli) based on the individual's analysis (the mental process). Further, the addition of the memory and processor included onboard a primary BLS device and these generic computer components are generically recited as transmitting data from one BLS device to a secondary BLS device in order to output a command based on parameters. These additional limitations do not constitute additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional components besides generic computing and BLS devices are not included and the causing steps, including output commands, can be performed by hand (an individual manually adjusting stimuli or communicating that stimuli need to be adjusted) based on the individual's analysis (the mental process).The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited in claims 2-8, 11-13 and 16-20 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The recitation of bilateral stimulation is not presented in a manner relevant to a medical condition since the recitation of output BLS stimuli is broadly interpreted as any BLS stimuli imparted on a subject (audio, visual, tactile) and not necessarily encompassing a medical condition.
An analysis of the claims is shown below:
Step 1: Claims 1-8, 10-13 are directed towards a system or apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
Claims 15-19 are directed towards a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-19 recite limitations that are directed to an abstract idea. These claims recite receiving inputs, generating parameters for stimuli and causing output of the stimuli and commands. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It would be practically performable in a human’s mind, or with pen and paper, to analyze data as well to compute and select corresponding settings. Analyzing information and making a determination based on information is akin to an observation, evaluation or judgement that defines the mental process grouping. Thus Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-19 are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 recite the following additional elements:
-controller (claims 1, 10, 15)
-memory (claims 1, 10)
-processor (claims 1, 10)
-BLS devices (claims 1, 10, 15)
-vibration mechanism (claims 2, 11)
-light mechanism (claims 2, 11)
-audio output mechanism (claims 4, 11)
-mobile device (claim 8)
-portable control device (claim 16)
The memory, processor, and controller components are generically recited at a high level of generality. Further mere instructions or commands to apply judicial exception using a generic processing device independently does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Most notably, none of the additional elements recited in these claims apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. While the bodies of these claims discuss outputting BLS stimuli, there is no claim limitation that recites a particular treatment method as the bilateral stimulation is not presented in a manner relevant to a medical condition.
Thus claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: When considered individually and in combination, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the receiving inputs, generating parameters, causing outputs are also generically recited at a high level of generality. Mere command to apply a judicial exception using a generic processor does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the processes and steps can be considered nonfunctional descriptive material because there are no elements that show how the processor interacts with other components or fulfills the function of outputting BLS stimuli to deliver a change within the system.
In reconsidering the additional elements of the method, the additional elements were determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on the following evidence:
Jones (U.S. 20210213239) discloses a controller [Abstract; “controller module”], memory [0074; “memory component”], processor [0096; “application processor and a graphics processor”], BLS devices [Abstract; “Bilateral stimulation devices”], vibration mechanism [0053; “disc vibration motor, ultrasonic vibrator”], light mechanism [0096; “OLED”], audio output mechanism [0074; “speaker”], mobile device [0095; “mobile wireless device”], portable control device [0095; “tablet”] in reference to bilateral stimulation devices.
Therefore, these elements are demonstrated to be generic, well understood components that are commonly recited in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Causey (U.S. 20200376230) in view of Habib (U.S. 20210128058).
Regarding Claim 1, Causey teaches a controller [Fig. 2, element 34] and [0037], comprising:
a memory [0030]—reference to the processor’s having memory devices; and
a processor [Fig. 1, elements 13A and 13B (processor)] configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
receive an input to initiate bilateral stimulation (BLS) stimuli [0041]—describing activation and deactivation of the stimulation element;
generate parameters for the BLS stimuli based on the received input [0042; “The amplitude A, in one example, may be variably controlled by the therapist or the subject through the applications residing in the mobile devices.”]; and
cause BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli for a user of the BLS devices according to the generated parameters [0041]—describes the transmitter/receiver receiving wireless signals including control signals and the stimulation being activated and deactivated.
and wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli by transmitting, from the primary BLS device directly to a secondary BLS device of the BLS devices, an output command based on the generated parameters [0047; “In this example, the therapist application 22 transmits pulse control signals 27A, 27B to bilaterally located primary pulsation devices 20A and 20B.” and “Using, for example, Bluetooth® technology, the primary pulsation devices simultaneously transmit the received control signals 27A, 27B to secondary sets of pulsating devices 20C-20F.”]
Causey is silent on wherein the memory and the processor are included onboard a primary BLS device of the BLS devices. Habib teaches wherein the memory and the processor are included onboard a primary BLS device of the BLS devices [Fig. 11, elements 1870 (onboard processor) and 1871 (onboard memory), and [0091]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an onboard processor and memory as suggested by Habib, in the BLS stimulation device as taught by Causey, as Causey discusses the use of onboard processors [0036] with Habib because Habib teaches the processor connected to memory to store and control treatment plans associated with stimulation [0091].
Regarding Claim 2, Causey further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli by causing the BLS devices to alternately output tactile stimulation via a vibration mechanism of each of the BLS devices according to the generated parameters [0043]—describing control waveform signals delivered in an alternating fashion and “Those skilled in the art having the benefit of this disclosure will recognize that other waveforms and vibration schemes may be used.”]
Regarding Claim 3, Causey further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli by causing the BLS devices to alternately output visual stimulation via a light mechanism associated with each of the BLS devices according to the generated parameters [0041; “Further, the indicator light 40 may be switched into a plurality of color modes such as red signifying "off," yellow signifying "connecting," and green signifying "connected" modes.”]
Regarding Claim 4, Causey further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli by causing the BLS devices to alternately output audible stimulation via an audio output mechanism associated with each of the BLS devices according to the generated parameters [0038]—describes audio provided to pulsating devices and [0008; “programmed to enable a subject to hear the audio information through the mobile device and transmit the alternating pulsation signals to the pair of pulsating devices.”]
Regarding Claim 5, Causey further teaches wherein generating the parameters includes generating at least one of a time synchronization of the BLS devices for the BLS stimuli [0044]—reference to synchronized control signals, an alternation interval for the BLS stimuli [0042]—describing alternating pulse signal and “the time between pulses may be as short as 50 ms or as long as 1000 ms or more depending on the response of the subject.”], and an intensity level of the BLS stimuli [Fig. 3, elements 52 and 60]—depicting changes in amplitude and [0042]—describing the therapist or subject controlling the amplitude (A).
Regarding Claim 6, Causey further teaches wherein the input includes session data for a real-time BLS session and the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
generate the parameters utilizing the session data [Fig. 9, elements 970, 972 and 976]; and
cause the BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli for the real-time BLS session according to the generated parameters utilizing the session data [Fig. 9, element 974 and 985 “Receive and Transmit Communications and Receive BLS Signals”]—where the communications and signals are interpreted to be the parameters and [0038]—reference to real-time streaming or live sessions.
Regarding Claim 7, Causey further teaches wherein the input includes predetermined session data for a pre-recorded BLS session [0044]—referencing synchronized control signals and the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
generate the parameters utilizing the predetermined session data [Fig. 4, element 70 “Record Session with Synched Control Signals”] and [0044; “In this process, a therapist 100 may record a therapy session including synchronized control signals for operating pulsating devices at activity 70.”]; and
cause the BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli for the pre-recorded BLS session according to the generated parameters utilizing the predetermined session data [Fig. 4, elements 74, 76 and 80].
Regarding Claim 8, Causey is silent wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: receive biometric information about the user from a mobile device; and generate the parameters for the BLS stimuli based on the biometric information. Habib teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
receive biometric information about the user from a mobile device [0104]—reference to a feedback loop and use of heart rate, pulse, respiration rate, ECG/EKG and EEG; and
generate the parameters for the BLS stimuli based on the biometric information [0104; “The feedback can then be used to adjust the treatment settings…or both.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate biometric feedback as taught by Habib to adjust treatment parameters as suggested by Causey, as Causey discusses variably controlling parameters of stimulation [0042] with Habib because Habib teaches altering treatment settings to determine optimal settings [0104].
Regarding Claim 10, Causey teaches a controller [Fig. 2, element 34], comprising:
a memory [0030]—reference to the processor’s having memory devices; and
a processor [Fig. 1, elements 13A and 13B (processor)] configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
receive an input to initiate bilateral stimulation (BLS) stimuli [0041]—describing activation and deactivation of the stimulation element, wherein the input includes predetermined session data for a pre-recorded BLS session [0044]—referencing synchronized control signals;
generate parameters for the BLS stimuli utilizing the predetermined session data [Fig. 4, element 70 “Record Session with Synched Control Signals”] and [0044; “In this process, a therapist 100 may record a therapy session including synchronized control signals for operating pulsating devices at activity 70.”];
and cause BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli for a user of the BLS devices according to the generated parameters for the pre-recorded BLS session [Fig. 4, elements 74, 76 and 80] and [0044],
and wherein the primary BLS device is configured to transmit an output command to a secondary BLS device of the BLS devices via a wireless connection directly between the primary BLS device and the secondary BLS device [Fig. 7, elements 20A-B (primary pulsation devices), 20C-F(secondary sets of pulsating devices)], [0041]—describes the transmitter/receiver receiving wireless signals including control signals and the stimulation being activated and deactivated and [0047; “In this example, the therapist application 22 transmits pulse control signals 27A, 27B to bilaterally located primary pulsation devices 20A and 20B.” and “Using, for example, Bluetooth® technology, the primary pulsation devices simultaneously transmit the received control signals 27A, 27B to secondary sets of pulsating devices 20C-20F.”]
Causey is silent on wherein the memory and the processor are included onboard a primary BLS device of the BLS devices. Habib teaches wherein the memory and the processor are included onboard a primary BLS device of the BLS devices [Fig. 11, elements 1870 (onboard processor) and 1871 (onboard memory), and [0091]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an onboard processor and memory as suggested by Habib, in the BLS stimulation device as taught by Causey, as Causey discusses the use of onboard processors [0036] with Habib because Habib teaches the processor connected to memory to store and control treatment plans associated with stimulation [0091].
Regarding Claim 11, Causey further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the BLS devices to output the BLS stimuli by causing the BLS devices to alternately output [0043]—describing control waveform signals delivered in an alternating fashion, for the pre-recorded BLS session, at least one of:
tactile stimulation via a vibration mechanism [0043; ““Those skilled in the art having the benefit of this disclosure will recognize that other waveforms and vibration schemes may be used.”];
visual stimulation via a light mechanism [0041; “Further, the indicator light 40 may be switched into a plurality of color modes such as red signifying "off," yellow signifying "connecting," and green signifying "connected" modes.”]; and
audible stimulation via an audio output mechanism [0038]—describes audio provided to pulsating devices and [0008; “programmed to enable a subject to hear the audio information…pair of pulsating devices.”]
Regarding Claim 12, Causey further teaches wherein the primary BLS device is configured to control an alternation interval of the BLS stimuli [0042]—describing alternating pulse signal and “the time between pulses may be as short as 50 ms or as long as 1000 ms or more depending on the response of the subject.”], and wherein the secondary BLS device is configured to control an intensity level of the BLS stimuli [Fig. 3, elements 52 and 60]—depicting changes in amplitude and [0042]—describing the therapist or subject controlling the amplitude (A).
Regarding Claim 13, Causey further teaches and wherein the processor of the secondary BLS device is configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory of the secondary BLS device [0047; “In this example, the therapist application 22 transmits pulse control signals 27A, 27B to bilaterally located primary pulsation devices 20A and 20B.”] to control an intensity level of the BLS stimuli [Fig. 3, elements 52 and 60]—depicting changes in amplitude and [0042]—describing the therapist or subject controlling the amplitude (A), wherein the primary BLS device communicates wirelessly with the secondary BLS device [0047; “In this example, the therapist application 22 transmits pulse control signals 27A, 27B to bilaterally located primary pulsation devices 20A and 20B.” and “Using, for example, Bluetooth® technology, the primary pulsation devices simultaneously transmit the received control signals 27A, 27B to secondary sets of pulsating devices 20C-20F.”] Causey is silent on wherein the secondary BLS device includes a memory and processor onboard the secondary BLS device. Habib teaches wherein the secondary BLS device includes a memory and processor onboard the secondary BLS device [Fig. 11, elements 1870 (onboard processor) and 1871 (onboard memory), and [0091]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an onboard processor and memory as suggested by Habib, in the BLS stimulation device as taught by Causey, as Causey discusses the use of onboard processors [0036] with Habib because Habib teaches the processor connected to memory to store and control treatment plans associated with stimulation [0091] and [0109]—referring to the second treatment unit being used concurrently with the first unit.
Regarding Claim 15, Causey teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first controller associated with a first pair of bilateral stimulation (BLS) devices [0067; “In another example, the pair of pulsating devices include a receiver, a controller”], an input to cause the first pair of BLS devices to initiate BLS stimuli [Fig. 7, 27A (pulse control signals)], wherein the input includes session data for a BLS session [0042]—describing the pulse control signals and variably controlling these signals by the therapist or user,
generating, by the first controller, parameters for the BLS stimuli utilizing the session data [0042]; and
causing, by the first controller, the first pair of BLS devices to output the generated BLS stimuli for a first user of the first pair of BLS devices according to the generated parameters for the BLS session [Fig. 7, elements 27D and 27E], [Fig. 4, elements 74, 76 and 80] and [0044], by transmitting, from the primary BLS device directly to a secondary BLS device of the first pair, an output command via a wireless connection between the primary BLS device and the secondary BLS device[Fig. 7, elements 20A-B (primary pulsation devices), 20C-F(secondary sets of pulsating devices)], [0041]—describes the transmitter/receiver receiving wireless signals including control signals and the stimulation being activated and deactivated and [0047; “In this example, the therapist application 22 transmits pulse control signals 27A, 27B to bilaterally located primary pulsation devices 20A and 20B.” and “Using, for example, Bluetooth® technology, the primary pulsation devices simultaneously transmit the received control signals 27A, 27B to secondary sets of pulsating devices 20C-20F.”]
Causey is silent on wherein the first controller is included onboard a primary BLS device of the first pair of BLS devices. Habib teaches wherein the first controller is included onboard a primary BLS device of the first pair of BLS devices [Fig. 11, elements 1870 (onboard processor) and 1871 (onboard memory), and [0091]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an onboard processor and memory as suggested by Habib, in the BLS stimulation device as taught by Causey, as Causey discusses the use of onboard processors [0036] with Habib because Habib teaches the processor connected to memory to store and control treatment plans associated with stimulation [0091].
Regarding Claim 16, Causey further teaches wherein the method includes transmitting, by a portable control device, the input to the first controller [Fig. 7, element 12 (first mobile device), 27A (pulse control signal)] and [0036].
Regarding Claim 17, Causey further teaches wherein the method includes receiving, via a user interface of the portable control device, the input including the session data [Fig. 7, element 22 (therapist application)] and [0047].
Regarding Claim 18, Causey further teaches wherein the method includes transmitting, by a remote portable control device [Fig. 1, element 14 (second mobile device)], the input to a second controller associated with a second pair of BLS devices to cause the second pair of BLS devices to output BLS stimuli for a second user of the second pair of BLS devices [0067; “In another example, the pair of pulsating devices include a receiver, a controller”], [Fig. 7, element 27B (pulse control signal)], and wherein the first pair of BLS devices and the second pair of BLS devices comprise a group of BLS devices [0047]—description of the primary devices (first pair of BLS devices) and secondary devices (secondary set of pulsating devices) transmitting signals to one another.
Regarding Claim 19, Causey further teaches wherein the BLS session is a real-time group BLS session [0047]—reference to conducting a group session.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to the drawing, specification, and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101
rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive in light of the amendments. Applicant contends that Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 15-19 are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The examiner has re-evaluated subject matter eligibility based on the amendments and arguments and has concluded the following:
Step 2A-Prong One—the recited steps are still directed towards a mental process because the amended steps of receiving, generating, and causing in reference to signals (inputs and outputs) are still directed towards processes performable in a human mind. In response to the applicant’s assertion regarding the claims not directed to a principle that is a “fundamental truth, an “original cause” or a “motive”, the examiner notes that the mental processes recited constitute an abstract idea and therefore, qualify the subject matter as an abstract idea.
Step 1A, Prong Two—while the applicant contends that the claimed method and system encompass elements or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more and that the claimed invention “improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field”, and the claimed invention does more than perform a conventional action. It utilizes elements in a specific, purposeful technical framework that provides a therapeutic bilateral stimulation platform…concrete device network that supports synchronized group EMDR and individualized intensity control. It is understood that the applicant seeks to address this problem with however, the recited claims do not include reference to this subject matter and amount to receiving, generating and causing an output to BLS devices. While the examiner acknowledges that claims 1, 10 and 15 recite cause(ing)…output…cause the BLS devices…output commands”, this could be akin to a decision-making step in regards to the transmitted signals. Furthermore, the additional elements recited in claims 1-8, 10-13, and 15-19 are generically recited and do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.
Step 2B—applicant does not present a specific assertion in regards to this step however, the examiner maintains that Jones et al. demonstrates that these additional elements are generic, well understood components that are commonly recited in the art.
In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.102 have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15-19 citing Causey in view of Habib. Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 15, applicant contends that Causey does not teach a controller that comprises a memory and a processor included onboard a primary BLS device. The examiner agrees with this assertion and provides the new grounds of rejection citing Causey in view of Habib, accordingly.
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to the rejection of
Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 8, applicant contends that Habib does not cure the deficiencies of Causey. Examiner notes that Fig. 11 depicts a primary BLS device including a control and onboard process and memory as referenced in the body of the rejection presented above. In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8 citing Causey in view of Habib is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
